Daily Republican., 1887-02-18
EDITION.
Argument In the Suit f"r Damages

Woottep, Houston and Grub ON the
,such. InmediAtely after the opening =
Mr.. Bird resumed hts argument 70 the
Iury for the plaintiff. and said that he I
he had fully argued that theI
plans Of this buiIding were defecuvel |
and the walls too thin There facts
have been clearly established BY thief
evidence Ct lfseen or eighteen oompe-
tent men, all Of whom ere known toI
rome of the jury. Againat this evidence
the defense had produced one witness,
Mr.. Sellers, to show that the Wall was
not detective, and this man admitted
hilhself that no u IN iron worker AND
not an Architect.
n had Also been brought ont by the
cross- cram inasion that Mr.. Sellers 10
brother in Jaw OF Mr.. Olemens B.
Smyth, one Of the stockholders OF this
Company, and while he did not believe
that MI. Sellers would tell IN untruth,
IL VAS but reasonable 70 suppose that
ha would m Axe his evidence - lAvora-
BILE Is possible for relative.
He also called attention to the fact
that ex.BuildiDg Inspector Chandler
had admitted ON the witness stand that
on the night OF the day the building
fell. and ON several occasions After
wards, he had admitted that the walls
we're too thin. This Of itself shows
that the company had undertaken to|
nut CD an insufficient building, and In
50 doing they assumed al the responsi-
bility which might Arite In the matter
The Triggers had testified that tho Wall
vas steady when they put mp the
trus ses, but it had been shown that 1t
WAS kept steady by the props which
John T. Davis ordered Coddell 70 70
A. a. hal % n0atdenf HAd
these props been allowed to remain the
val, might have been standing to day
This com pasy designed this building
they prescribed the length. height and
thickness of the wall; they had these
props removed, and they are respon-
sible for its fall and the consequent
damage.
Mr.. Bird then turned his attention to
the point raised by the defense, that the
plaintiff had not exercised proper care
in examining the wall before going tC
work on the building, and said that be
had nothing to do with that, as the
plaintiff had right TO assume that the
wall was safe, unless there Was som'
Rlaring defect.
The defect was hidden and latent
waiting for o puff OF VIVID to knock Il
down. The defense alleges . terrible
storm, and wonld try 10 make the jur,
believe that Providence had SOM
malice against their wall, and launched
. terrible tornado against 1t, sent will
such precision that 1t did not strike on
inch beyond the $50 feet occupied b,
that wall, ard that the Almighty hA'
q spite against it, because it was onl.
nine inches thick. The counsel On tn
other side have even tried to shos
where every inch of that storm ruck
but it had been shown by witnesse
from all around the ueighborhood, o.
all sides of this mill, that there ha
not been any tornado, or at least,
there was, they did not know 1t; thi
tornado theory was frat preached ct
counsel OF this Company, when the
were threatened with . criminal suit.
He asked II it was reasonable 10 sur
nose that the men would have RENAME
on this roof If there had been tornado
Men are not fools, and II there had bee
o tornado they would have been tr.ir
to get out Of its way instead OF &C Ing Q
with their work until the building fei
Henry Holiday, the colored boy wi
was at work cleaning up the roof,
alive to-day, In possession OF his faou
ties and his straw hat, and he came {
the ttand to testify that there was n
wind enough to blow / is hat off.
Mr.. Bird then turned mis- attention
the amount of damages the plant
should receive, and said that no amou
OF moneS could recompense him Tor b
pain and suffering during the TO
months he laid on that bed, or the ia
that If he shonld live TO be 80 years o
he would have TO 20 through life
cripple.
He said that he would claim Axeu
piary damages, and he thought Il
Court would instruct the jury that
they were satisfied that there was gre
negligence, as ke claimed, on the pi
of the company, they would be justin
in awarding exem plary damages viii
would make the defendant compa
smart and deter Others from the ga
negligence. He also claimed comp
satory damages, and this should be-
eush an amount that, after he has p;
his eouI sci and other expenses,
bAlar &c invested at per cent wo
8 lord him compensation for the u
hs would be obliged TO lose each ,
from his employment, and the DIFF
ence be ween the amount OF money
e.rnea before he was hurt and what
/. able to earn row. He thou
$4,000 would be snfi cieut fox this =
pose, ard this am cunt ne ash ed at Il
hands.
Upon finishing bis argument to
Jury he presented number OF poin I
law to the Court and asked that
jury should be charged, that II they
lieved from all the evidence that
plain tiff was injured through the he
eence Of the defend ants. they u
allow him punitive damages.
He Concluded at 11.40 O'Clock,
was followed by Nr. Bates for
plaintiff. He said he did not prof.
to discuss this matter In Q detamai
manner, but won d deal In facts, WI
he proposed to present to the Jury.
be did not believe the jury would
to trouble themselves about the ame
of de- images, ne would not discuss
injuries this ycunG man had rece
or Anything cJncerL ing his preseD.
dition.
He " ould however claim that 1t
been shown from the witness stand
now, IL months after The accident
only permanent injury is, that On
his limbe Ia three quarters CT an
shorter than The other. He c:ntel
that it was not customary to mplo
architect TO prepare plaIs for wo
this kind, as II was st best not
more than a shed TO cover machine
Several witnesses had testified
they had seen The tornado, aud the
dence of witnesses who have I'd
thing must alwa. have greater W
ILan that Of those VINO did not see
Mr.. Bates had not finished spea
when Court took recess.
ale of Horses and Mules.
Messrs, Jester & Mcdaniel will f
IL IL n